Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
drbrumley
Well-known member
yep, typical response from Chrysostom, he'd rather mock someone than actually discuss an issue.
:mock: Chrysostom
Terrible analogy.
Matthew didn't write the first book of the NT because of taxes.
Ben Wilkinson wrote the first book about King James Onlyism because of his Seventh Day Adventism.
If it wasn't for SDA, there wouldn't be King James Onlyism.
Before SDA, for 250 years, no one claimed the KJV was the only inerrant English bible. The SDA's started this mess, and for some reason other Christians have joined them.
I already answered your questions in an earlier post
which you so far as I can see you didn't respond to.
We've been talking about Easter quit a bit in this thread.
What "certain poster" are you referring to?
Why do you think "Easter" is the correct word in Acts 12:4 KJV?
brandplucked
New member
Show us your inerrant bible or be honest about it
Show us your inerrant bible or be honest about it
Hi go. Sir, I often use the 200 English bibles and many foreign language bibles to show how different they all are. I know that the KJB is God's inerrant words and has pure doctrine.
You don't honestly believe that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. If you think you do, then show it to us. If not, why the dishonesty at refusing to admit it?
Are you ashamed of not believing in an inerrant Bible?
Many others are at least being honest about what they believe - or rather, don't believe. It is a growing movement.
Don't just be a BAA - Bible Agnostics Anonymous. Come out of the closet and show your true colors. Rave them proudly;-)
Show us your inerrant bible or be honest about it
Hi go. Sir, I often use the 200 English bibles and many foreign language bibles to show how different they all are. I know that the KJB is God's inerrant words and has pure doctrine.
You don't honestly believe that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. If you think you do, then show it to us. If not, why the dishonesty at refusing to admit it?
Are you ashamed of not believing in an inerrant Bible?
Many others are at least being honest about what they believe - or rather, don't believe. It is a growing movement.
Don't just be a BAA - Bible Agnostics Anonymous. Come out of the closet and show your true colors. Rave them proudly;-)
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
How do you know he didn't? That's an assumption you are making. Maybe he decided there was more money in making a journal? Sell it to CNN. Nothing is off the table my friend.
:scripto:
brandplucked
New member
Easter IS correct in Acts 2:4
Easter IS correct in Acts 2:4
tetelestai, Easter is correct in Acts 12:4. The KJB translators were not dummies and they did not have a collective "senior moment" when they translated it this way.
The word paska MEANS Easter just as much as it means Passover.
Have you read the article?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/easter.htm
There are many of us who believe Easter is correct - a growing number in fact, and not all of them are KJB onlies.
Someone else posted an article by Nick Sayers on Easter too. He is not even KJB only and he supports the idea that Easter means Easter and for good reason.
Easter IS correct in Acts 2:4
tetelestai, Easter is correct in Acts 12:4. The KJB translators were not dummies and they did not have a collective "senior moment" when they translated it this way.
The word paska MEANS Easter just as much as it means Passover.
Have you read the article?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/easter.htm
There are many of us who believe Easter is correct - a growing number in fact, and not all of them are KJB onlies.
Someone else posted an article by Nick Sayers on Easter too. He is not even KJB only and he supports the idea that Easter means Easter and for good reason.
brandplucked
New member
Fake bibles need to be made fun of.
Fake bibles need to be made fun of.
your fake bibles need to be made fun of. We do not take them seriously.
Here is a real gem from the "scholarly" Vatican Version called the ESV. It is the same liberal RSV garbage in a new bag.
1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (ASV 1901, Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible, , Jehovah Witness New World Translation) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or as the Jehovah Witness New World Translation has it - I Samuel 13:1 - “Saul was . . .* years old when he became king, and for two years he reigned over Israel. “ Footnote: The number is missing in the Hebrew text." or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years." in the New English Bible of 1970!
But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?
Can you guess which other version reads this way? You got it; the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay Version 1950 which read: "Saul was A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."
Fake bibles need to be made fun of.
your fake bibles need to be made fun of. We do not take them seriously.
Here is a real gem from the "scholarly" Vatican Version called the ESV. It is the same liberal RSV garbage in a new bag.
1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (ASV 1901, Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible, , Jehovah Witness New World Translation) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or as the Jehovah Witness New World Translation has it - I Samuel 13:1 - “Saul was . . .* years old when he became king, and for two years he reigned over Israel. “ Footnote: The number is missing in the Hebrew text." or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years." in the New English Bible of 1970!
But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?
Can you guess which other version reads this way? You got it; the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay Version 1950 which read: "Saul was A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
As relates to the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) KJB discussions in this thread, see: http://www.bibleprotector.com/
For a quick check, look at whether Ezra 2:26 has the spelling “Geba”.
From here, use this checklist to ascertain whether the Bible is a Pure Cambridge Edition:
For a quick check, look at whether Ezra 2:26 has the spelling “Geba”. Then see...
1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8
Variations between common editions of the King James Bible, as compared to the pure cambridge edition (standard), with reference to the 1611 edition:
http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm
AMR
For a quick check, look at whether Ezra 2:26 has the spelling “Geba”.
From here, use this checklist to ascertain whether the Bible is a Pure Cambridge Edition:
For a quick check, look at whether Ezra 2:26 has the spelling “Geba”. Then see...
1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8
Variations between common editions of the King James Bible, as compared to the pure cambridge edition (standard), with reference to the 1611 edition:
http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm
AMR
drbrumley
Well-known member
We have? I only saw you mention it in post 493 to George Afflect. If it was brought up earlier, I apologize I didn't see it and if you can be kind to link to it.
You and the newb. Only a couple posts doesn't equate to "quite a bit."
Because to me, scripture answers your questions about scripture. That's what I believe. So I look at this story about Peter's arrest and look at the clues. First clue is I go back to Exodus. The Passover was on the 14th day of the month (Abib) correct?
| Exodus 12:13-18: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. 14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. 16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. 18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even." |
Now couple that with the events of Peter in Acts 12:3,4
| 3And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. And those were the days of unleavened bread. 4And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people. |
So here we have this taken place in "those were the days of unleavened bread." Clearly in the Exodus passage above, the feast of unleavened bread started in day 2 of this 8 day event. So the Passover was already done. Unless you have some evidence I am missing, and you can be so kind to supply it here for me to look over, this is what I have to go on.
Thanks.
WK, I just bought a Hendrickson Bible, KJV - it has a preface to the 1873 edition - Is mine not a Cambridge ? Is it ok ?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Hey cool deal. I didn't know you did this.....I will look it over...
genuineoriginal
New member
It is good of you to admit your feasting at the Bible Buffet.
Either you are deliberately being dishonest or you really did not read my earlier post.
Here it is again.
genuineoriginal
New member
Easter is not correct and the Greek and the Latin prove it should have been translated as Passover.
They may not be dummies, but it is you that had a "senior moment" and failed to realize that they just left the error from the 1602 Bishops’ Bible in place.
Maybe this "printers error" will be corrected in the next edition of the ever evolving KJV?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Ok, can you please provide a link to the manuscripts that say Easter is an error? Thanks.
drbrumley
Well-known member
All the bibles show Peter's arrest. All the bibles but one show the word Passover.
Yet all the bibles (including the KJV) have the same events leading up to Peter's arrest, during Peter's arrest and after Peter's arrest, but yet everyone here says no can't be. :think:
Yet all the bibles (including the KJV) have the same events leading up to Peter's arrest, during Peter's arrest and after Peter's arrest, but yet everyone here says no can't be. :think: